Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burakkucat]

. . . BT should fix the ECI cabs before bringing even more improvements to the Huawei.

It is up to ECI to provide the fix(es) to the systems that they, ECI, have supplied.

I am quite certain that the customer, the BT Group, is applying pressure onto the supplier, ECI, for such remedial action.

[Black Sheep]

^^^^^^^^^^ He knows.

[broadstairs]

It is up to ECI to provide the fix(es) to the systems that they, ECI, have supplied.

I am quite certain that the customer, the BT Group, is applying pressure onto the supplier, ECI, for such remedial action.

Whilst I agree with that to an extent I am convinced that the BT Group are not really putting that much pressure on ECI as probably the vast majority of customers on ECI equipment do not complain.  BT have made a huge error in using ECI equipment and because of that they should be creating merry hell with ECI to fix it, but they wont unless either a very significant proportion of users on the ECI estate start to complain or OFCOM and the Government put pressure on them. They have made a fundamental error in not doing proper due diligence  prior to using ECI equipment.

If 10% of the customers complain they can put up with that, if it were 80+% things would be different. Lets face it most of Joe Public are not bothered and therefore letting BT off the hook.

Stuart

[guest3]

We pay more or less the same yet we dont get the same infastructure plus benefits as the huawei users enjoy. Not a level playing field though it should be..

[NewtronStar]

If you gave me these two options -
(A) connected to a ECI @ 300 meters to cabinet with a sync of 70 Mbps and running ok with fastpath with no G.INP
(B) Connected to Huawei @ 1000 meters with 36Mbps and using G.INP i'll go with option A anyday

[broadstairs]

If you gave me these two options -
(A) connected to a ECI @ 300 meters to cabinet with a sync of 70 Mbps and running ok with fastpath with no G.INP
(B) Connected to Huawei @ 1000 meters with 36Mbps and using G.INP i'll go with option A anyday

But I'm on an ECI around 300 mtrs from cabinet capped at 59995kbps on fastpath and unable to get cap removed. On G.INP I had 70000+kbps on same cabinet, how is that reasonable.

Stuart

[ktz392837]

But I'm on an ECI around 300 mtrs from cabinet capped at 59995kbps on fastpath and unable to get cap removed. On G.INP I had 70000+kbps on same cabinet, how is that reasonable.

Stuart

That is the ever decreasing estimates problem meaning BT never acknowledge a problem (as the estimate changes to your line speed) therefore you are stuck.

ISPs should be able to click a button and reset the line to remove banding especially if you have excess db available over the normal 6db. 

Put a suitable cap on the number of resets per day across the ISP and perhaps per user per year to stop over usage.

Even if ECI gets GINP as you are capped you probably wouldn't get chance to take advantage as the DLM is so stupid.

[Dray]

When you sign up you are given an estimate by the ISP. What was your estimate?

[ktz392837]

If you gave me these two options -
(A) connected to a ECI @ 300 meters to cabinet with a sync of 70 Mbps and running ok with fastpath with no G.INP
(B) Connected to Huawei @ 1000 meters with 36Mbps and using G.INP i'll go with option A anyday

I suspect 70Mbps connection at 300m on ECI without GINP is a dream for many especially if there are more than a few people on the cab.

Obviously a line that is 700m closer is going to be better.  In my opinion a fairer example would be a line 400m away on an ECI running 50-60Mbps or a line running on Huawei with GINP running 60-70Mbps and with 3db 80Mbps.

I would want the Huawei.

BT selected the cabinets they should have the same functionality.  I think BT should be forced to say that it is not just line length and copper conditions - speed also depends on what cabinet type - I bet that would focus their minds.

~2 years trialling ECI GINP how long before they should get compensation from ECI and replace the cabs.

I do have symphony for BT in many areas but this is a screw up and they should do more.

[ktz392837]

When you sign up you are given an estimate by the ISP. What was your estimate?

For me when I first signed up 80/20 but as years have passed each time I sign up for a new contract they use the current estimate therefore I can't make a complaint or anything.  If I wasn't on an ECI cab there would be much less of a problem due to GINP and certainly if 3db was active I would still have a 80/20 connection.

[NewtronStar]

Come on guys you can't decide what type of cabinet your line is assigned to or how far you are from the cabinet it's just the luck of the draw.

I can't get BT Openreach to move my FTTC and PCP cabinet closer to my house and 300 meters would be nice you just have to take it on the chin.

[broadstairs]

Come on guys you can't decide what type of cabinet your line is assigned to or how far you are from the cabinet it's just the luck of the draw.

I can't get BT Openreach to move my FTTC and PCP cabinet closer to my house and 300 meters would be nice you just have to take it on the chin.

Yes that's true BUT and its a big BUT BT are using substandard equipment in ECI cabinets, that is the point I think being made here.

If you are on Huawei cabinets then you have a superior service no matter how far you are from the cabinet or how many disturbers you might have. BT have a duty in my view to either fix it or replace the ECI estate with equipment which is not substandard. Now I guess the bean counters want ECI to fix the stuff but it seems likely that their design is so flawed that this is unlikely to be possible at least in the short term. If it cannot be fixed then as it is not fit for purpose ECI shold be made to pay a significant refund to BT which might just allow something else to be done.

Stuart

[PhilipD]

Hi

I doubt BT are worried about this scenario, for a start no one can prove anything as you can't swap out from an ECI cab to an Huawei to prove what speed you would get.  Plus VDSL has many variables nothing is guaranteed.

BT never advertised G.INP or that customers speeds might improve because of it and latency may drop (due to the removal of interleaving), and the vast majority of people have no idea about it.  Inequality of services exist all over the place even when people are paying more for that service, for example some people commute to work in quiet air conditioned trains with room to sit down whilst others travel in over-crowed dirty carriages with delays and cancellations the norm.

BT are not going to be worried about trying to fix G.INP on ECI cabs as Long Reach G.FAST is what they are trying to get working now, another system hacked about with to satisfy the accountants which will see those with slow VDSL due to line distance stuck on slow VDSL still.  Long range G.FAST is struggling to support vectoring where 96 ports are now required rather than G.FASTs design target of 12-16 ports in a pod near to customer premises, so I suspect there will be similar issues where version 2 kit ends up working better than older kit and BT will not bother to fix that either.

Regards

Phil

[broadstairs]

All of this simply re-inforces my view that not only ECI is not fit for purpose but neither is BT. Its about time the government did something about this otherwise the UK will be forever in the internet slow lane. BT simply do not deserve to keep their position in this business.

However snow flakes chance in hell comes to mind, no one in any position of power really cares.

Stuart

[lee111s]

I suspect 70Mbps connection at 300m on ECI without GINP is a dream for many especially if there are more than a few people on the cab.

Obviously a line that is 700m closer is going to be better.  In my opinion a fairer example would be a line 400m away on an ECI running 50-60Mbps or a line running on Huawei with GINP running 60-70Mbps and with 3db 80Mbps.

I would want the Huawei.

BT selected the cabinets they should have the same functionality.  I think BT should be forced to say that it is not just line length and copper conditions - speed also depends on what cabinet type - I bet that would focus their minds.

~2 years trialling ECI GINP how long before they should get compensation from ECI and replace the cabs.

I do have symphony for BT in many areas but this is a screw up and they should do more.

When the original contract was signed, I don't think G.INP was a thing, so ECI won't be contractually bound to pay compensation for a technology which was developed after the initial roll out.

Openreach could have said to Huawei, we're not implementing G.INP so that it's the same acorss the board for all end users, but that would be stupid.